Best 'Bang for your buck' IEM - Poll

[MacClintock]

Speaking of 7Hz x Crinacle Zero: 2 in the context of best bang for your buck:

If you think the new Moondrop x Crinacle DUSK is the improved version you may want to check out the Artti R2 for 1/9th the price! **For me** the slight bump between 4-6kHz (which you can control with tips) makes the Artti R2s the superior IEM. You may also get a supposedly better increased response above 15kHz too, lol!

View attachment 365620View attachment 365621

View attachment 365622View attachment 365623View attachment 365624View attachment 365626

Hm, for me the fact that the Zero 2 stays a bit below the Harman 2019 target between 4 and 6kHz is a desired feature. And the Artti falls off a cliff above the 8kHz resonance, so it is a double pass for me.

 

[USER]

And the Artti falls off a cliff above the 8kHz resonance, so it is a double pass for me.

You can't say that. IEC711 graphs aren't dependable there, and clone couplers are worse. You see the same thing in Crinacle's 711 graph of the Zero 2, but the better B&K one shows that it is not the case. I'd be willing to bet based on patterns I have seen that it actually follows Harman closely in that area in better measurements with the standard tips. This is one reason I went out of my way to show both Crinacle graphs.

 

[markanini]

Hm, for me the fact that the Zero 2 stays a bit below the Harman 2019 target between 4 and 6kHz is a desired feature. And the Artti falls off a cliff above the 8kHz resonance, so it is a double pass for me.

I didn't read the graph that way. Given that the bass is elevated vs Harman IE on both sets it would be better for the treble to approach almost Harman IE magnitude like the R2 does. More so given that a real person prefers R2 after hearing both. The notion that a 10kHz notch is problematic is counter to avalaible 711 HRTF data. That's why it's not surprising that owners of IEMs like Kiwi Quartet and Simgot EM6L complain abut treble sharpness, those IEMs measure with a more linear-sloped features in the upper range. I'm skipping The R2 because I'd like something less V-shaped.

Source: https://headphones.com/blogs/features/diffuse-field

 

[USER]

I didn't read the graph that way. Given that the bass is elevated vs Harman IE on both sets it would be better for the treble to approach almost Harman IE magnitude like the R2 does.

Completely agree. These don't get as "boomy" as the Zero 2s get with certain material for me and I strongly believe that this is the reason why. They are better balanced to me yet still give you that smoother treble than Harman sound. (My gold standard are still the modded 1st gen Zeros. These are my preferred change of pace IEMs.)

 

[mc.god]

From the 3 squigs that measured both, R2 appears like an Hola with more mid treble and a bit less air, no wonder they sound good.

https://mmagtech.squig.link/?share=Harman_2019v2_Target,ARTTI_R2_Foam,TruthEar_Hola_Foam
https://tonedeafmonk.squig.link/?share=ARTTI_R2,TruthEar_Hola
https://riz.squig.link/?share=Artti_R2,Truthhear_Hola

 

[InfiniteJester]

Apparently, the R1 and the R2 are very similar. The R1, as fun as they are, do not sound "correct". They sound a little recesed and "gritty". It is a cool effect, because it makes the soundstage deeper and gives you some analog feeling for classic progressive rock and so on, but I don't think that they are much versatile and precise.

I'm not so sure about many people liking them. Particularly after reading about their distortion.

If the R2 really sound like the R1, I warn you: they are very peculiar. They are fun, but they don't sound correct. The Delci sound much more correct and I imagine that thoy would be preferred by most.

And by correct I mean it as someone who has worked professionally not only as a musician, but also recording and mixing albums.

 

[mc.god]

View attachment 365687

Apparently, the R1 and the R2 are very similar. The R1, as fun as they are, do not sound "correct". They sound a little recesed and "gritty". It is a cool effect, because it makes the soundstage deeper and gives you some analog feeling for classic progressive rock and so on, but I don't think that they are much versatile and precise.

I'm not so sure about many people liking them. Particularly after reading about their distortion.

If the R2 really sound like the R1, I warn you: they are very peculiar. They are fun, but they don't sound correct. The Delci sound much more correct and I imagine that thoy would be preferred by most.

And by correct I mean it as someone who has worked professionally not only as a musician, but also recording and mixing albums.

I don't think R1 and R2 sound much alike, normalizing them at 500 Hz it's even more evident, and comparing to my favorite Sonus i think I could be fine with R2 but surely not much with R1. Delci seems still fine but at limit in the bass region for my liking.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I don't think R1 and R2 sound much alike, normalizing them at 500 Hz it's even more evident, and comparing to my favorite Sonus i think I could be fine with R2 but surely not much with R1. Delci seems still fine but at limit in the bass region for my liking.

View attachment 365691

I have felt tempted by the Sonus many times.

Your favorite, you say...

 

[USER]

View attachment 365687

Apparently, the R1 and the R2 are very similar. The R1, as fun as they are, do not sound "correct". They sound a little recesed and "gritty". It is a cool effect, because it makes the soundstage deeper and gives you some analog feeling for classic progressive rock and so on, but I don't think that they are much versatile and precise.

I'm not so sure about many people liking them. Particularly after reading about their distortion.

If the R2 really sound like the R1, I warn you: they are very peculiar. They are fun, but they don't sound correct. The Delci sound much more correct and I imagine that thoy would be preferred by most.

And by correct I mean it as someone who has worked professionally not only as a musician, but also recording and mixing albums.

While you can certainly compare them to each other, don't rely on mmagtech measurements to tell you about how they sound as intended, especially in the treble region. He measures everything with foam tips out of what I perceive as laziness having now actually measured IEMs. It is much easier to hit the 8kHz resonance with them. And he can't even do it here.

Edit: Just look at that comparison just posted. Absolutely dreadful. If the resonance doesn't match up it is not a good comparison and it will mislead you. This guy should stop wasting everyone's time. His measurements suck. Likely the worst on squig.link. This is partly why I got my own coupler. I can only trust myself. It took me a good 15 tries each to get results that I would put my reputation on and share with the public.

 

[InfiniteJester]

View attachment 365687

Apparently, the R1 and the R2 are very similar. The R1, as fun as they are, do not sound "correct". They sound a little recesed and "gritty". It is a cool effect, because it makes the soundstage deeper and gives you some analog feeling for classic progressive rock and so on, but I don't think that they are much versatile and precise.

I'm not so sure about many people liking them. Particularly after reading about their distortion.

If the R2 really sound like the R1, I warn you: they are very peculiar. They are fun, but they don't sound correct. The Delci sound much more correct and I imagine that thoy would be preferred by most.

And by correct I mean it as someone who has worked professionally not only as a musician, but also recording and mixing albums.

Fair enough.

Do you think that the other Squigs tell such a different story?

 

[USER]

There seems to be a pattern there but I can't say anything definitely unless the resonances match up. They may actually be closer than shown!

This says a lot about the state of the measurements on squig.link. I would never publish those measurements.

This is what an archive made with considerate effort would show:

Let me be the first to say: MY MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. There are some that I could not get to match up because of some physical limitation. These things are finicky. But I will sure as hell call out lazy measurers. Compare anything I have up and you will see great effort to hit that 8kHz resonance.

Edit: Shout out to Paul Wasabii, whom I consider the gold standard at squig.link for measurement quality. He gave me great tips such as measuring with the coupler flat on its side.

 

[mc.god]

I have felt tempted by the Sonus many times.

Your favorite, you say...

Yes, Sonus are preferred among my iems. Note that I refer to stock sound as I generally don't eq, since i like to switch iems enjoying their different personalities (clearly this is for already well tuned iems, not for those originally too flawed like my Panasonic, they NEED eq, and then they become incredibly good ).
Also note that Sonus are hybrid, so they could have higher distortion typical of BA drivers, I don't really know since I generally listen at low or moderate volume and this is one point that i greatly like about Sonus, they are fantastic still at extremely low volume.

 

[USER]

Perhaps this helps folks out: here is a comparison between Amir's distortion measurements and my basic ones. These are of the Truthear Zeros.

My results --which, again, I do not vouch for as I don't yet have a proper set-up to measure distortion-- show more distortion above 2kHz at 94 dB (at 450Hz compared to his 425Hz). So in the end the distortion of my Artti R2s should be lower than what my graph shows and below any result to worry about. I just wanted to supplement my post so that I don't mislead people. For now I have no reason to not believe the (commonly vague) spec of "<1.5%."

---

Edit: Found competent measurements of the R1. This tells quite a different story than the jumble of bad measurements above do, which as we can see here cause confusion. These IEMs are nothing like each other.

Here are our Zeros. It's remarkable how similar these things can measure. Of course not all IEMs match up perfectly (and I have plenty of mismatches) but the quality and consistency of modern manufacturing is severely underrated because of bad measurements. IEMs have been perfected for our needs and it is only a matter of smart tuning. Wish there was better--or simply some--quality control at squig.link.

 

[markanini]

View attachment 365687

Apparently, the R1 and the R2 are very similar. The R1, as fun as they are, do not sound "correct". They sound a little recesed and "gritty". It is a cool effect, because it makes the soundstage deeper and gives you some analog feeling for classic progressive rock and so on, but I don't think that they are much versatile and precise.

I'm not so sure about many people liking them. Particularly after reading about their distortion.

If the R2 really sound like the R1, I warn you: they are very peculiar. They are fun, but they don't sound correct. The Delci sound much more correct and I imagine that thoy would be preferred by most.

And by correct I mean it as someone who has worked professionally not only as a musician, but also recording and mixing albums.

I can appreciate the experience gained from that. Most of all it exposes you to how quickly you loose discernability after a few hours. You become functionally deaf to details that you would pick up easily with fresh ears. Compare that to something like ones language skills, where you get instant feedback if you misread or glossed over something, forcing you to step back and review. Working with audio tools is the closest you can get to that kind of feedback. Have you ever played with Harmans ear training software BTW? https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/8262 It's interesting how they used it to differentiate trained from untrained in various formal listening tests and studies. The only missing piece in Harmans work IMO is that listening duration was not considered, and there were no basic checks for ear fatigue, these are factors that would surely affect EQ preferences.

My experience with graphs is that small differences across broad ranges can sound more different than you would expect. Especially when the graph is presented with a rather compressed y axis. Based on that I would expect that R1 to sound distinctly V shaped, R2 less so.

 

[CedarX]

I can appreciate the experience gained from that. Most of all it exposes you to how quickly you loose discernability after a few hours. You become functionally deaf to details that you would pick up easily with fresh ears. Compare that to something like ones language skills, where you get instant feedback if you misread or glossed over something, forcing you to step back and review. Working with audio tools is the closest you can get to that kind of feedback. Have you ever played with Harmans ear training software BTW? https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/8262 It's interesting how they used it to differentiate trained from untrained in various formal listening tests and studies. The only missing piece in Harmans work IMO is that listening duration was not considered, and there were no basic checks for ear fatigue, these are factors that would surely affect EQ preferences.

My experience with graphs is that small differences across broad ranges can sound more different than you would expect. Especially when the graph is presented with a rather compressed y axis. Based on that I would expect that R1 to sound distinctly V shaped, R2 less so.

Great post !!! Love the comment about small differences across broad ranges—it also align with this theory (from the “critical bands” work) that we hear by roughly 1/3 octaves.

One thing I have noted is that when I actually use my gear to enjoy music (and not the other way around like I do way too often ), I very quickly adapt to an “imperfect” HP or IEM. That’s why the Harman work is so important IMO: their HP & IEM targets may not be the best for me personally… but they are an invaluable reference to what “good sound” is for the majority of people, a way for me to “reset” my ears and start appreciating the differences, or start EQ’ing, from there.

So the Thruthear Zero:Red leads in the poll: not really a surprise… but to me, it’s not the “best bang” for the buck, it’s the best “reference” for the buck.

 

[markanini]

Great post !!! Love the comment about small differences across broad ranges—it also align with this theory (from the “critical bands” work) that we hear by roughly 1/3 octaves.

One thing I have noted is that when I actually use my gear to enjoy music (and not the other way around like I do way too often ), I very quickly adapt to an “imperfect” HP or IEM. That’s why the Harman work is so important IMO: their HP & IEM targets may not be the best for me personally… but they are an invaluable reference to what “good sound” is for the majority of people, a way for me to “reset” my ears and start appreciating the differences, or start EQ’ing, from there.

So the Thruthear Zero:Red leads in the poll: not really a surprise… but to me, it’s not the “best bang” for the buck, it’s the best “reference” for the buck.

Yeah, Harmans work is such a net positive, can't be overstated.

 

[mc.god]

One thing I have noted is that when I actually use my gear to enjoy music (and not the other way around like I do way too often ), I very quickly adapt to an “imperfect” HP or IEM. That’s why the Harman work is so important IMO: their HP & IEM targets may not be the best for me personally… but they are an invaluable reference to what “good sound” is for the majority of people, a way for me to “reset” my ears and start appreciating the differences, or start EQ’ing, from there.

So true. For instance, I use TRN MT1 as on the go beater when not working from home, they are ok but not perfect at all, anyway I can listen to them stock with no issue and exactly pinpoint their coloration only when starting wavelet.

Now that i think about them, they can surely be mentioned in this thread for the 6 € i paid them at the time (but have to add cost for an 0.75mm mic cable from KZ with straight 2 pin connectors to get fit). Very fun listening with death metal.

 

[KosherButcher]

Fit is indeed a very important characteristic for IEMs, and the ear tip is a significant part of it. Getting a good seal (no leak) is the first goal, and what works for an individual may not work for another individual. Beyond that, I am not sure the ear tip material & geometry are that important: in your example, is it really the tip bore size & stem length that cause the difference in perceived response, or the fact that different tips result in different IEM positions relative to your ear drum?

I have some IEMs where I could choose between a large tip resulting in shallow insertion, or a smaller tip resulting in deeper insertion. Subjectively, I hear differences (well... I think I hear differences!), but I suspect it has more to do with the tip enabling different insertion depth than the tip itself (material, construction, bore size & geometry).

How do you separate and determine the contributions to the perceived response of all these tip parameters?

Well, for one, one of the examples that I gave are the Truthear RED tips, where the IEM ships with two sets of tips - narrow bore and wide, with the tips being otherwise identical. So they fit in the ear in the exact same way, but have different sized openings. These tips do have slightly different sound between the two, and while I haven't measured that objectively, I do believe some people have.

With regard to the stem length, I agree that that probably does change the sound because of how it can be placed in relation to the ear drum. But I also think that if a tip stem were long enough (where it became almost like a tube-cable), then that could probably alter the sound directly. I once tried making extenders for a tips for a particularly hard to fit set of IEMs, using clear tubing, and my initial attempt had such long stems that the sound changed drastically.

I don't have any sort of IEM measurement equipment, I'm only a a mixing and mastering engineer. But I'm sure the extreme measurers on this forum have ways of testing the variation in sound that different tips can make in a more objective manner. IIRC I've seen different measurements posted here for the same IEMs with different tips of all manners.

And yes - I certainly agree with you that getting a good seal is the first goal, because without that I don't know how anyone could possibly hear any IEM correctly.

 

[USER]

I can't believe I never compared these before:

My modded Salnotes Zeros are pretty much Truthear x Crinacle Reds but with a much smaller (and for me better fitting) nozzle. Seems like a much cheaper alternative or perfect for anyone with smaller ears that can't use the latter.

 

[USER]

Posting these more dependable measurements as the CCA Trios were discussed on this thread and are going for $20 at AliExpress now. Yes, they really do try to follow Harman. These were taken with the foam-type tips that come with them, not the softer ones also in the package.

Great match with Paul Wasabii. However my normalization better shows why these are a bit bright sounding to the people that have heard them here. For me and my ears anything that passes Harman is too much and needs adjustment.

The 1010 switch configuration was mentioned here as a corrective. I was not able to find any measurements online so I am posting my own. I can see why boosting the bass gives the effect of a seemingly more balanced sound. I have many other configurations on my squig.link page.

Moondrop spring tips are highly effective on these and I recommend trying them out if you like the 1010 configuration, though of course this is all relative to your ears.

In the end, I like these a lot with Spring Tips (though I feel that for my taste I need to EQ the bass bump at 80Hz down a little more). They are the heaviest IEMs I own but they are comfortable. It may likely only be in my mind because of visual bias but I feel that the vents make these have a wider soundstage than normal and it is enjoyable. Distortion may be a little higher than desired these days above 8kHz (boosting the treble via switches seems to effect it) but I am not seeing anything too horrible nor am I hearing it, though it is worse than with the Artti R2s. Plus I think it is likely a good thing to bring that area down with EQ anyways. There may be an interesting little artefact at around 900Hz (due to the switches??) but on my measurements it is below 0.5%, which likely means it is actually lower than that so it is not an issue. Still it would be interesting to know what the effects of the switches are so I bring them up. I will wait until I have a better set-up before posting any distortion numbers so as to avoid confusion.

For $20 bucks and with some alterations, I recommend them as they are different than most other IEMs with the large vents and switches. Boy is KZ/CCA such a strange company with their race to the bottom prices.